Obama give reason to buy guns!!

did anyone see this? i just saw this on facebook, and i've included the link to the story...


http://networkedblogs.com/lQi7t?a=share&ref=nf

i think that's all the more reason to carry + have an extra mag if you don't normally.

It doesn't need to be a "lone wolf terrorist" for yoou to be prepared to defend against. Or at least since we do not regularly call muggers and robbers and rapists "terrorists".

Saying we need to be prepared for "lone wolf terrorists" but not for the rest of what life has to offer is like saying I need a fire extinguisher in case lightening strikes my house but not for any of the other ways a fire could start in my house.

But if saying that will get someone who is not already thinking about the fact that they are on their own for protection until the cops get there to take statements, draw chalk outlines and write up reports, then let's let him say that.

stay safe.

I think that the talk of "lone wolf terrorists" is to divert attention from the fact that there are large, well-funded, anti-American, anti-Liberty, anti-capitalism, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, pro-Islamofascist groups out there who will try to pull off another attack the size of 9/11 or larger.

Yes, lone wolves, like Hassan, will pull off small attacks. However, the real fear should be those who want to bring down this bastion of Liberty with a spectacular attack. Lone wolves from within are the proper purview of law enforcement and should be handled with law enforcement tactics. Large-scale threats which, with near exclusivity, emanate from without, are the proper purview of our national defense structure and should be handled with military techniques.

The biggest problem that we have today in dealing with terrorists is that our leadership is too willfully ignorant to see this distinction.

All that said, the OP has a good point. Had the folks at Fort Hood been armed, they could've easily dispatched Hassan with many fewer casualties. Oh...wait...it was unlawful for them to be armed.

I'm of the opinion that to Ocrappa and his cronies everyone who's not a lazy whining leftist sheeple who kisses Obonehead's feet is a "terrorist".

I stopped reading when I encountered the following bit of propagandistic disinformation:

Snyder said, “Obama’s been an anti-gun politician from the get-go. His administration’s behavior in the Justice Department’s scandalous ATF Operation Fast and Furious, now the subject of an ongoing congressional investigation, shows he still is. So does the administration’s attempt to do an end run around Americans’ Second Amendment rights by its promotion of an anti-gun United Nations Arms Trade Agreement.

Click to expand...

Shame on you, Snyder. There are real threats to our 2A rights. Focusing our attention on fantasy ones doesn't do those rights any good.

All of the fear surrounding the small arms treaty with the u.n. is unfounded. There are not 67 senators that would vote to ratify it. Should we keep an eye on it? Sure. Should we be in constant fear of it? No.

marshaul said:

I stopped reading when I encountered the following bit of propagandistic disinformation:



Shame on you, Snyder. There are real threats to our 2A rights. Focusing our attention on fantasy ones doesn't do those rights any good.

Click to expand...

to tell you the truth- i didn't even see that. i've seen that "UN gun ban treaty" for the past 2 years, and i've done research on it. that treaty can NOT override our 2nd amendment. it's impossible because our constitution is the law of the land, not a treaty....


before you tell me it says "and all treaties made...", you need to take a minute and read it. it DOES say that, but it also has wording that says the treaty must line up with the constitution.

rodbender said:

All of the fear surrounding the small arms treaty with the u.n. is unfounded. There are not 67 senators that would vote to ratify it. Should we keep an eye on it? Sure. Should we be in constant fear of it? No.

Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if it's ratified- it will have no bearing on our law in the US. read the constitution.

marshaul said:

I stopped reading when I encountered the following bit of propagandistic disinformation:



Shame on you, Snyder. There are real threats to our 2A rights. Focusing our attention on fantasy ones doesn't do those rights any good.

Click to expand...

The UN anti-gun bs is doa in the Senate, even if the Arkansas Sow gets her way. Obooba is and always has been anti-liberty--most certainly including the 2nd. I don't see this as disinformation at all. It is all true, but I agree neither presents a real and present danger. I'm surprised at your comment.

hammer6 said:

it doesn't matter if it's ratified- it will have no bearing on our law in the US. read the constitution.

Click to expand...

I understand that treaties are only valid if they are in line with the Constitution. With the way that the feds have disregarded the Constitution for the past 100 years, they will attempt to enforce it if it is ratfied.

I know the Constitution

See post #9

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?92507-Nobama-going-ot-ignore-the-law-again

rodbender said:

I understand that treaties are only valid if they are in line with the Constitution. With the way that the feds have disregarded the Constitution for the past 100 years, they will attempt to enforce it if it is ratfied.

I know the Constitution

See post #9

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?92507-Nobama-going-ot-ignore-the-law-again

Click to expand...

why should i spend all that time looking up all that stuff if it's not going to matter? until someone that is a CONSTITUTIONALIST gets in to EVERY single seat in congress and the white house, this country is going nowhere...

Gunslinger said:

The UN anti-gun bs is doa in the Senate, even if the Arkansas Sow gets her way. Obooba is and always has been anti-liberty--most certainly including the 2nd. I don't see this as disinformation at all. It is all true, but I agree neither presents a real and present danger. I'm surprised at your comment.

Click to expand...

It's disinformation because, even were there political support for such a measure, a treaty is not constitutionally permitted to override the bill of rights.

marshaul said:

It's disinformation because, even were there political support for such a measure, a treaty is not constitutionally permitted to override the bill of rights.

Click to expand...

Agree. See where you were going now.

Snyder makes some great points, but his prose is all over the map. He verbiage needs an editor.

since9 said:

...He verbiage needs an editor.

Click to expand...

QFI*








*quoted for irony